Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 117

Thread: AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,599

    Default AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks

    Phoronix: AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks

    AMD today is lifting the lid on their Piledriver-based 2012 FX "Vishera" processors. Just weeks after the "Bulldozer 2" Trinity APUs were launched, the new high-end AMD FX CPUs are being rolled out. Being benchmarked at Phoronix today under Linux is the new AMD FX-8350 processor.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18051

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    It's nice for amd that there are at least some results better than intel's quad cores. It is easy to guess which benchmarks use much more commands for the integer function units compared to the floating point ones. Maybe cray could be analyzed in that way. Basically amd can only shine in fully multithreaded benchmarks and preferred without fpu code (because there are only 4 fpus but 8 for integer). I miss a bit povray, thats a fully single threaded benchmark, similar to cinebench in single threaded mode.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Yet more trash from AMD.

    Jesus christ, step it up or go home.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,044

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottishduck View Post
    Yet more trash
    How much exactly do you know about CPU design?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    292

    Default

    heise.de: AMD's FX-8350 125Watt TDP pure fake number 168 watts measured

    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...i-1734298.html

    AMD is just try to fool us.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Why are the AMDs doing so badly in floating point arithmetics? It's not like Intel has 8 FPUs and 4 integer cores...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by necro-lover View Post
    heise.de: AMD's FX-8350 125Watt TDP pure fake number 168 watts measured

    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...i-1734298.html

    AMD is just try to fool us.
    TDP = Thermal Design Power

    TDP is an indicator on how much sustained thermal power you have to get rid of for stable operation, not a figure for maximum power consumption. Maximum power consumption may well exceed the TDP for short periods of time.
    Last edited by SavageX; 10-23-2012 at 02:57 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SavageX View Post
    TDP = Thermal Design Power

    TDP is an indicator on how much sustained thermal power you have to get rid of for stable operation, not a figure for maximum power consumption. Maximum power consumption may well exceed the TDP for short periods of time.
    You are wrong because its not a short period of time you can force this output all the time.
    Thats why the Opterons clocked so much lower because the Opterons really do not HIT the TDP.
    In my point of view this cpu is only stable in a 125watt TDP cooling system if you downclock it.
    also this cpu need a 8-10phase 140-150watt mainboard.

    don't even try to buy a 125watt mainboard and 125watt cooling solution for this cpu.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by necro-lover View Post
    You are wrong because its not a short period of time you can force this output all the time.
    Thats why the Opterons clocked so much lower because the Opterons really do not HIT the TDP.
    In my point of view this cpu is only stable in a 125watt TDP cooling system if you downclock it.
    also this cpu need a 8-10phase 140-150watt mainboard.

    don't even try to buy a 125watt mainboard and 125watt cooling solution for this cpu.
    Note that the CPU turbo mode is temperature dependant. The CPU will throttle back to base clock if CPU temperature exceeds the comfort threshold, thus a 125 Watt cooling solution will keep the CPU safe, even though you may get better sustained turbo with a more powerful cooler.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SavageX View Post
    Note that the CPU turbo mode is temperature dependant. The CPU will throttle back to base clock if CPU temperature exceeds the comfort threshold, thus a 125 Watt cooling solution will keep the CPU safe, even though you may get better sustained turbo with a more powerful cooler.
    thatís just cheating in benchmarks because you only get the result with some nasty tricks means cheat cooling solutions.

    John Doe cooling solution at home will never get any good result.

    But hey thatís the fake world we life in.

    In my point of view this is a ~150watt TDP cpu and the intel one 3770K is a ~100 watt TDP cpu.

    Now you can save money on the CPU and then pay more power bill or you spend more money on the CPU and save on power bull in the end you pay exact the same.

    There is no competition at all !

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •